Jump to content

President Biden


Happy Face
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think they have accepted this, hence the pleas. They're worried, I suspect, about the hit to their circulation they would take if they paywalled their website. They're a popular site at the moment because they're free and have an active comment section. The latter will go when the paywall comes up.

 

When the time comes for them to do it, I think I'll simply stick to the Economist. If I'm going to be paying for Neoliberalism, I may as well cut out the middleman (and the identity politics).

 

the guardian are haemorrhaging money. their business model is finished, and no amount of begging bowls at the bottom of their articles is going to fix that.

 

they should accept that they're not a nimble new media group and do what other quality old media have done and introduce a subscription fee. people will pay for quality journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stuff about his hands reminds me of Jack Kelly in Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

 

a first for a presidential debate. discussion over the size of one of the candidate's peckers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a comment in the Guardian that suggested that it was impossible Le Pen would win given how their system works. She has enough to get to the final round of voting but that'd be it.

 

i fucking hope not. but you have to say that, unlike in america, this is one country with a recent history that should significantly influence voters on areas like immigration and terrorism. a move to to the populist right in france wouldn't surprise me as much as trump winning the us election did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the guardian are haemorrhaging money. their business model is finished, and no amount of begging bowls at the bottom of their articles is going to fix that.

 

they should accept that they're not a nimble new media group and do what other quality old media have done and introduce a subscription fee. people will pay for quality journalism

 

Such an approach limits their impact though. If they just wanted to put journalism out there you'd be right, but they have an agenda to spread - they need visibility for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i fucking hope not. but you have to say that, unlike in america, this is one country with a recent history that should significantly influence voters on areas like immigration and terrorism. a move to to the populist right in france wouldn't surprise me as much as trump winning the us election did.

 

True. Could be interesting. Sarko just lost on an immigration ticket though, so maybe it isn't the main issue for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought, O.K., let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. After the meeting today, though—and I am being human with you here—I think, Fuck him! I know I am being emotional about it. And I know I will get over it in a couple of days after Thanksgiving. But I really am offended. This was unprecedented. Outrageous!”

 

 

:lol:

 

The only TV anchor I remember getting this animated about IRAQ was Olberman and he got ousted.  Now these delicate flowers are going to change the standard of their coverage not because they should hold leaders to account as journalists, but because he was nasty to them personally.

 

Getting over it in a couple of days, and I assume returning to 'benefit f the doubt', is the icing on the cake.  Regardless of their feelings towards him, they will only strongly criticise him anonymously, for fear of losing their access/job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Mr Trump's top adviser, Kellyanne Conway, told MSNBC he would not pursue an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server as he wanted to help his defeated Democratic rival "heal"

 

 

:lol: Massive climb down on perhaps his clearest promise, he was going to have a special prosecutor to look into her 'situation' wasn't he? The lock her up bunch will be fuming.

Edited by Howay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

“But he truly doesn’t seem to understand the First Amendment,” the source continued. “He doesn’t. He thinks we are supposed to say what he says and that’s it.”

 

 

:lol:

 

Anyone got that 2006 Colbert White House Correspondents dinner clip for them.  This isn't an unreasonable expectation from Trump.  This has been the tacitly agreed approach with consecutive presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Mr Trump's top adviser, Kellyanne Conway, told MSNBC he would not pursue an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server as he wanted to help his defeated Democratic rival "heal"

 

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Fucking hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Massive climb down on perhaps his clearest promise, he was going to have a special prosecutor to look into her 'situation' wasn't he? The lock her up bunch will be fuming.

 

Exactly the same as Obama who promised officials who engaged in torture would not be above the law and that he would protect whistleblowers.

 

:lol:

 

Trump supporters will only be as disappointed as Obama's, who as far as I can tell think he's been the best President of their lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

The only TV anchor I remember getting this animated about IRAQ was Olberman and he got ousted.  Now these delicate flowers are going to change the standard of their coverage not because they should hold leaders to account as journalists, but because he was nasty to them personally.

 

Getting over it in a couple of days, and I assume returning to 'benefit f the doubt', is the icing on the cake.  Regardless of their feelings towards him, they will only strongly criticise him anonymously, for fear of losing their access/job.

 

I really don't get what you're worried about? As I said, the election is over. There's nothing wrong with drawing a line under it and moving on but it appears that Trump doesn't want to. Giving unbiased reporting a chance is a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get what you're worried about? As I said, the election is over. There's nothing wrong with drawing a line under it and moving on but it appears that Trump doesn't want to. Giving unbiased reporting a chance is a bad thing?

 

Reporting on Trump will be as sycophantic as it has been to Bush and Obama.

 

Drawing a line under what has gone before is just a way of making the transition to becoming Trump USG propaganda wings.

 

Why would any journalist looking at Trump want to disregard that he brags about sexual assault and remains unapologetic?

 

For the same reason they did for Berlusconi.  He spent the best part of 15 year in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reporting on Trump will be a sycophantic as it has been to Bush and Obama.

 

Drawing a line under what has gone before is just a way of making the transition to becoming Trump USG propaganda wings.

 

Why would any journalist looking at Trump want to disregard that he brags about sexual assault and remains unapologetic?

 

For the same reason they did for Berlusconi.  He spent the best part of 15 year in power.

 

Do you really think that's what'll happen? It'll totally challenge my view of what the establishment is if so; which would be really interesting tbf. We'll see I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that is his private life that has been well discussed previously. Judging him on how he behaves in office seems fair enough to me. I really don't think that the coverage would have been 'sycophantic' but in USA the office does come with a certain level of respect towards the holder. It doesn't mean that the media can't/won't hold him to account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that's what'll happen? It'll totally challenge my view of what the establishment is if so; which would be really interesting tbf. We'll see I guess.

 

We've seen it happen before, to idiots, movie stars and daddy's made men in the past.  Reagan and Bush were no more serious minded than Trump.  

 

They may have had stronger handlers than Trump though.  There's a small chance that if Trump were to appoint outsiders in all the key roles then the establishment might turn, but it doesn't look at all like that will happen.  As someone posted in the election thread, all his appointments have decades long records in Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've seen it happen before, to idiots, movie stars and daddy's made men in the bast.  Reagan and Bush were no more serious minded than Trump.  

 

They may have had stronger handlers than Trump though.  There's a small chance that if Trump were to appoint outsiders in all the key roles then the establishment might turn, but it doesn't look at all like that will happen.  As someone posted in the election thread, all his appointments have decades long records in Washington.

 

Except Bannon. But otherwise yes, I can see where you're coming from more clearly now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Andrew changed the title to President Biden

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.